Aug. 24, 2005: NATION: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION

The last time Fort Monroe was faced with closure, Hampton residents lined the streets of Phoebus in an emotional show of support for their historic Army base.But that was 12 years ago, when the prospect of losing a beloved military property -- the only active Army base with a moat -- sent shock waves through the community.

How could Hampton survive the loss of thousands of jobs? What would happen to the close-knit community of Phoebus that had served Monroe families so faithfully for decades?

When a commission spared the fort from closure in 1993, Hampton breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Today, as a new federal commission prepares to vote on Fort Monroe's future, the political climate could hardly be more different.

After years of preparations for a new closure threat, passions have cooled, surprise has turned to resignation and the pending decision seems almost preordained.

Officially, Virginia lawmakers have put up a brave front, saying Fort Monroe should be preserved because the Pentagon failed to account for the high costs of environmental cleanup.

But from the moment the Defense Department put Fort Monroe on its closure list in May, lawmakers warned that saving it would be an uphill battle. Few, if any, officials have predicted success.

"We put in a case for Fort Monroe," said Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a principal author of the base-closure initiative. "There hasn't been much talk about it."

Privately, officials offer a more blunt assessment of Fort Monroe's chances of survival.

"I think it's going to be a difficult save," said an official involved who requested anonymity because of the ongoing lobbying effort. "I think the odds are against us. It's basically an administrative facility. It's not a training facility."

Fort Monroe, which serves as headquarters for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, sits on 500 acres of prime waterfront property that could command a high price if cleaned up and redeveloped.

Despite its attractive location, long favored by Army generals nearing retirement, the base has long been rated low in military value. The Army this year ranked Monroe 68th among 97 installations nationwide. And 10 of the facilities that ranked lower than Monroe were not even military properties, but commercial office space leased to the Army.

But a decision to close Fort Monroe, if it comes, is unlikely to trigger the outpouring of grief, anger and economic angst that would have accompanied such a move a decade ago, officials say.

For one thing, they note, it has long been anticipated -- and talk about alternative uses for the prime real estate has already begun. Even more important, the economic impact would be limited. Unlike the proposal of 12 years ago, the new plan would close Fort Monroe and send most of its jobs to nearby Fort Eustis, in Newport News.

"I do not think we're going to have shock and dismay" if Monroe is closed, said Charles Sapp, a Hampton City Council member and retired Navy captain who has helped lobby to save the base. "Most of the people at Fort Monroe probably won't have to move. That's one of the problems. It isn't really seen as a loss. The money will stay on the Peninsula."

The Pentagon wants to close Fort Monroe to save an estimated $686 million over 20 years. Local officials have faulted the Defense Department for ignoring the high costs of environmental clean-up, including the need to dig up unexploded ordnance that litters the property.

When those and other costs are considered, the closure would cost the government between $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion, wiping out any savings, according to an analysis provided by the city of Hampton.

But the Pentagon has long maintained that cleanup expenses should not be included in the cost analysis of closure because the government has a legal obligation to clean up the property even if the base stays open. Local officials say the Pentagon ignores the higher standards required of environmental cleanup if the property is to be used for non-military purposes.

Fort Monroe is one of 33 major U.S. bases targeted for closure by the Pentagon in what would amount to the largest round of base closures since the current process began in 1988. Pentagon leaders have pushed hard for this year's closure effort -- the first in a decade -- by saying they must be allowed to shed excess infrastructure to better serve a streamlined fighting force. The proposal, which would also restructure 29 major bases, including Fort Eustis, and close or realign 775 minor ones, is estimated to save $49 billion over 20 years when fully implemented. In addition, the commission has added eight more bases for possible closure, including Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach.

In one possibly hopeful sign for Fort Monroe, commission members have expressed doubt about the Pentagon's estimated cost savings. Anthony J. Principi, the commission chairman, said the Pentagon might realize only half of the savings claimed.

"The cost savings that we find are significantly lower than the Pentagon has reported," Principi was quoted as telling reporters Monday, though he was not referring specfically to Fort Monroe.

While the fight to save Fort Monroe has been relatively low-key, Virginia officials have scrambled to the defense of Oceana, which employs nearly 12,000 workers. Commission members have expressed concern that encroaching suburban development in Virginia Beach is crippling flight training for Navy pilots.

The commission could also vote today on whether to close the Navy's submarine base in Groton, Conn. -- a move that would send 11 additional submarines to Norfolk Naval Station. *

CLEANUP COST

$1.3 billion to $1.9 billion

The estimated cost of environmental cleanup at Fort Monroe, according to an analysis by the city of Hampton.